Trouble logging in?If you can't remember your password or are having trouble logging in, you will have to reset your password. If you have trouble resetting your password (for example, if you lost access to the original email address), please do not start posting with a new account, as this is against the forum rules. If you create a temporary account, please contact us right away via Forum Support, and send us any information you can about your original account, such as the account name and any email address that may have been associated with it.

If you say I am the only one that says usage of firearms protocols is different all over the world for police (and therefore, civilian life) and soldiers (and therefore, war), I will take your word for it.

I think he's saying that guns and shields are different, in that a shield prevents you from being injured, but can't injure another person, while a gun cannot directly prevent you from being injured, but can only be used to kill another person or threaten to kill another person.

It's a qualitative difference.

Shields aren't weapons, but rather armour, and the two terms have different implications.

For instance, if you are afraid of being shot, it's reasonable to wear a bullet proof vest, but a gun won't prevent you getting shot.

Except you can bludgeon someone with a shield, and having a gun can save your life. Either by scaring you potential enemy into not attacking at all, or in running him off after he's attacked, or, yes, in hurting the other guy first.

I think he's saying that guns and shields are different, in that a shield prevents you from being injured, but can't injure another person, while a gun cannot directly prevent you from being injured, but can only be used to kill another person or threaten to kill another person.

It's a qualitative difference.

Shields aren't weapons, but rather armour, and the two terms have different implications.

For instance, if you are afraid of being shot, it's reasonable to wear a bullet proof vest, but a gun won't prevent you getting shot.

They're both tools to mitigate threat from a tactical standpoint. A gun mitigates a threat from someone planning harm to you who discovers you aren't defenseless. A shield, as Anh says, *is* a weapon in sword and shield combat. This is what I'm talking about when I say people should understand the topic before trying to write rules (or make blanket assertions).

I'm all for mitigating the circumstances that create the violence we're seeing. I don't see any point in "feel good" solutions that aren't actually solutions ... or in fact make things worse.

THIS. Prevention should be immediate; better to nip the problem in the bud than never.

This, as well as social and economic problems (poverty, the war on drugs, lack of social safety nets) are the real cause of gun violence in America.

I mean, look at Switzerland. Males are required by law to retain an automatic rifle as part of their militia service, and after their service is done, many opt to have it converted to a semi automatic in order to keep it, many of whom do. It's one of the most gun prolific nations in the world. And despite this, Switzerland has a lower homicide rate than the United Kingdom.

The main reason for this is because Switzerland has a high overall, across the board standard of living, and good social safety nets.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vexx

I'm sorry but that's a resort to dictionary assertion and anyone familiar with military tactics will tell you a shield is a weapon. It makes you sound like you don't really know the topic.

I think Vexx would shed tears after reading this. As much as Farrell is a doomsayer of Marketwatch, I think what he highlighted is pretty crucial - investors are looking too much into short-term gains.

__________________

When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus.
Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.

I think Vexx would shed tears after reading this. As much as Farrell is a doomsayer of Marketwatch, I think what he highlighted is pretty crucial - investors are looking too much into short-term gains.

Facebook != short-term gains ..

And don't get me started on Amazon.. http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/...eeping_on.html -- They are what you call bad investments. Same thing with exploding space shuttles and the titanic. Let's see where money gets directed when you find a big meteorite floating within travel distance that is made up >50% of gold ..

And don't get me started on Amazon.. http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/...eeping_on.html -- They are what you call bad investments. Same thing with exploding space shuttles and the titanic. Let's see where money gets directed when you find a big meteorite floating within travel distance that is made up >50% of gold ..

What I meant by long-term gains is something that is able to develop another investment opportunity or offshoot in the future, like the old typewriter companies who end up building printers, etc.

Facebook IS in fact a short term gain, I don't see it developing any new usesable groundbreaking technology other than as an automated communications interface, in the future.

__________________

When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus.
Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.

And don't get me started on Amazon.. http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/...eeping_on.html -- They are what you call bad investments. Same thing with exploding space shuttles and the titanic. Let's see where money gets directed when you find a big meteorite floating within travel distance that is made up >50% of gold ..

Amazon's anomalous existence only hurts the giant corporate machine--I approve. Anything to shake things up in the status-quo-addicted business world earns a gold star from me.

Amazon was directly responsible for the democratization of Android tablets--they're the reason $200 7-inch tabs are a thing now. Amazon and Google together are responsible for driving down the overall price of smartphones thanks to the $200 Kindle Fire, the $350 Galaxy Nexus and $300 Nexus 4. Because of this massive shakeup in the mobile industry, the iron grip that carriers like AT&T and Verizon have on the market is slipping.

T-Mobile already announced it's doing away with handset subsidies, and with its purchase of MetroPCS is poised to become much more influential in the market than it ever has. Prices of flagship devices and iPhones might remain in the $500 range, but the Nexus 4 is a beast of a smartphone that easily kicks the ass of any other flagship device out there for $350 ($300 if you don't mind 8GB of internal storage and use the cloud).

Democratization of products and services only helps the consumer in any sort of run. I don't buy the complaints that cheaper goods will cause the markets to implode--that stinks of "right to profit" Koch brothers and Enron-style nonsense that caused us to get into this mess in the first place.

^ My point is that Amazon doesn't make any money. Never has and likely never will -- so people who invested in Amazon, at least for the long-term, are foolish. Greater fool theory at work I suppose, whoever ends up holding the stock when the music stops..

^ My point is that Amazon doesn't make any money. Never has and likely never will -- so people who invested in Amazon, at least for the long-term, are foolish. Greater fool theory at work I suppose, whoever ends up holding the stock when the music stops..

Aha, that is very true--Amazon's profits are so razor-thin that nobody will really make money off them without resorting to "creative accounting."